[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Sat Feb 20 13:25:38 UTC 2016
Actually, Kavouss, that is wrong. There is no such golden rule that I can recall. In fact, there is evidence in the report otherwise.
Both Annex 1 and Annex 2 state:
“The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.”
These adjusted could, I would argue should, encompass the power to recall the Board.
But since we are on the topic, I would appreciate it if Steve could clarify this -- would the Board insist that, if the GAC does not participate in the EC as a decision so participant, the threshold for recalling the Board remain at 4 SOACs, i.e. that there be unanimous support among the 4 remaining decisional SOACs to recall the Board?
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
On Feb 20, 2016, at 2:42 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
The simplest and most straight forward was to resolve the issue; address/ meet the Boards Concerns is that in no way and Under any circumstances, the Spill of the Board should be decided by less than 4SO/ AC. That was the golden ruilehat everybody agreed before this so-called CARVE_OUT being proposed generating considerable disagreements and disputes
Imagine that all we have done to bring ther Board on CCWG SIDE would be compromised if the Bioard tables a SERIOUS CONCERNS /disagreement on reduction on the Number os SO/AC from 4 to 3 ,no matter Under what circumnstances.
Retention 4 SO(AC for Spill over of the Board may decrease the concerns of Carve-out to a greater extent
2016-02-20 5:08 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
IT WAS A MISTAKE
2016-02-20 4:50 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>:
The next call is on 23 February at 0600 UTC.
On Friday, February 19, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Here it is 0340UTC and I am still following all exchanged e-mails.
Some of them promising and some other disappointing
The Co-Chairs decision to hold on the forwarding the final report till the issue of threshold is resolved is the most WISE and the most appropriate decision.
I fully support it .
Good luck for CCWG call on 26 Feb.
2016-02-20 1:19 GMT+01:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>:
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html>.
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thomas, León, Mathieu
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community